Mauricio R. Bellon and Elisabetta Gotor Bioversity International Francesco Caracciolo

1. UN MARCO CONCEPTUAL PARA EVALUAR EL ÉXITO DE PROYECTOS DE CONSERVACIÓN EN FINCA CON EVIDENCIA DE 6 CASOS EN LOS ANDES DE ECUADOR, PERÚ Y BOLIVIA Mauricio R. Bellon and Elisabetta Gotor Bioversity International Francesco Caracciolo Universitá degli Studi di Napoli Federico II

2. Background • Last 20 years a growing interest in the use and management of agricultural biodiversity in farmers’ fields and in the wild (i.e. on-farm and in situ conservation) • as a complementary strategy to ex situ conservation • Many projects implemented worldwide to support on farm conservation • However, still a lack of tools that enable donors, practitioners and policy makers to systematically evaluate a project’s success

3. The project • Project to provide donors, policy-makers and practitioners with the conceptual and methodological tools to assess the success of their projects and the lessons learned, and hence their investments • Focus on the high Andes of South America • Use of case studies and mixed methodologies • Analyzed six projects on on-farm conservation in the region

4. Projects on on-farm conservation seek to influence three outcomes • Agricultural biodiversity • the relevant components and their respective levels of biodiversity maintained in an agricultural system • Livelihood benefits • the private benefits that farmers and their households derive from that agricultural system • Societal benefits • the public benefits that society derives from the relevant components of biodiversity maintained in an agricultural system

5. A simple conceptual framework

6. Agricultural Biodiversity Livelihood benefits (private)

7. Societal benefits (public) Agricultural Biodiversity

8. Agricultural Biodiversity Societal benefits (public) Agricultural Biodiversity Livelihood benefits (private)

9. Agricultural Biodiversity Societal benefits (public) Agricultural Biodiversity Livelihood benefits (private)

10. Agricultural Biodiversity Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

11. Agricultural Biodiversity Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

12. Agricultural Biodiversity Expected trend with economic development Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

13. Agricultural Biodiversity Expected trend with economic development Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

14. Agricultural Biodiversity Agricultural Biodiversity Intervention Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

15. Agricultural Biodiversity Agricultural Biodiversity Intervention Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

16. Agricultural Biodiversity Agricultural Biodiversity Ideal situation Intervention Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private)

17. Assessing success involves answering three questions • Do farmers apply the interventions provided by the project? • If so, does the application of these interventions lead to farmers maintaining higher levels of crop diversity that would have been without them? • Does this higher level of crop diversity lead to increased well-being among farmers who applied the interventions?

18. Answering positively to these three questions indicates that a project is successful Societal Benefits Agricultural Biodiversity Livelihood Benefits Project Interventions Adoption SUCCESS

19. Testable predictions • Farmers who apply project interventions: • maintain higher levels of crop diversity compared to those who do not apply them • those farmers who maintain higher levels of crop diversity obtain additional benefits from this diversity compared to those with lower diversity • In addition for sustainability: • (a) and (b) continue over time

20. Need measurable indicators for Agricultural Biodiversity Intervention Societal benefits (public) Livelihood benefits (private) And correct for confounding factors

21. Six projects examined

22. Project Interventions • Activities carried out by a project aimed at changing the way crop diversity is managed, used, consumed and marketed to: • increase the benefits farmers and their households derive from it (livelihoods) and • create the incentives for farmers to continue to maintain this diversity on farm (conservation)

23. Project interventions • 92 interventions across six projects • Ecuador • INIAP (Cotopaxi): 13 • UNORCAC : 22 • Peru • CRIBA: 13 • ITDG: 15 • Bolivia • Bioversity: 16 • SINARGEAA: 13

24. Interventions had different aims • Knowing and enhancing access to native crop diversity • Improving the agronomic management of the crop • particularly pest & disease management • Improving the consumption of the crop, storage & processing • Improving marketing to enhance income opportunities • Training and capacity building • Enhancing farmer organization for consumption & marketing • Disseminating information and knowledge • Providing opportunities for income generation through agro-tourism (only one project)

25. Participation rates versus adoption rates

26. INIAP CRIBA UNORCAC 1 .5 0 Rate of adoption ITDG Bioversity SINARGEAA 1 .5 0 0 .5 1 0 .5 1 0 .5 1 Rate of participation Participation versus adoption by project

27. Measurable indicators: Example from Bolivia ABD: Number of varieties of quinoa and cañahua planted by household • Confounding factors • Language • Age • Education • Sex head household • Landholdings • Wealth • Organizations • Labor availability • Migration • Sources of income • Location • Project Adoption: Number of interventions applied Private Benefits: Quantity of quinoa & cañahua produced for self-consumption & for sale or gross revenue from sale Public Benefits: Location in area of high genetic diversity

28. Framework for empirical assessment • The empirical model: ? ? PRIVATE BENEFITS ADOPTION ABD u v A priori-theoretical structure to test.

29. Empirical model Private Benefitsi = δ 0 + δ1 ABDi + δ 2X1i +…+δ 1+rXri + ei ABDi = β0 + β1 adoptioni + β2X1i + β3X2i +…+ β1+rXri + ui Adoptioni = γ0 + γ 1 Z1i + γ 2X1i + γ 3X2i +…+ γ 1+rXri + vi Z1: ex-ante participant in project Xr : Language, Age, Education, Sex head household, Landholdings, Wealth, Organizations, Labor availability, Migration, Sources of income, Location, Project

30. Regression results: Bolivia

31. Regression results: All projects

32. Conclusions • Do farmers apply the interventions provided by the project? YES • If so, does the application of these interventions lead to farmers maintaining higher levels of crop diversity that would have been without them? In some cases • Does this higher level of crop diversity lead to increased well-being among farmers who applied the interventions? In some cases • Plausible evidence that at least three on-farm conservation projects a have been successful

33. Implications • Implement a basket of interventions with different aims • Provide diverse and relevant “options” to the poor that enhance the value of what they already have • Diversity of domesticated plant species and their varieties, and animal breeds: an important entry point • Identifying, developing and offering new ways of cultivating, consuming, processing and marketing the diversity of crops and animal breeds they have as a way to enhance farmers’ choice and well-being • Enhance capacities • Influence the institutional environment • Interventions that enable choice

34. Acknowledgements • McKnight Foundation • Vivian Polar, Victor Barrera, Hugo Carrera, Ramiro Ortega, Fernando Alvarez

35. THANK YOU